Jump to content

South Carolina's population growth


CorgiMatt

Recommended Posts

All of the large cities have shown to be relatively good at encouraging quality new development and redevelopment. The Counties are the main problem because they have poor growth controls and are where 95% of the growth is occurring. Charleston County might be the best example of good growth controls because they have embraced the concept of an urban growth boundary even if it is not as "firm" as we want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Comparing Greenville and Richland counties' populations and growth is illogical.

Illogical?

This discussion started because the census bureau released estimated national, state, and COUNTY population figures. When they release new urban area figures it would be logical to discuss them. I didn't realize how touchy this comparison is for Columbia area people.

I think all of the various comparisons are valid and useful. City limits, urban areas, county, metro, etc. I saw a blog entry recently for someone who stayed in Greenville while on a motorcycle trip. They liked downtown Greenville but couldn't understand why there was so much traffic and so many 6 lane freeways in a town of less than 60,000.

Tell somebody waiting in traffic on their commute that county population numbers don't matter. There are plenty of people living on family farms in completely rural areas who are considered "metropolitan" because an interstate crosses their county 20 miles away with a knot of suburbs for a distant city.

From other responses it seems York will continue to grow at a good pace but Horry may slow down.

Another thing you notice from the population figures is that many of the areas between the I-85 corridor, Columbia, and the coast continue to hollow out. Places like Laurens County,Union, Saluda, Sumter etc. It is a shame that they seem to have been left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite how you break down all of this stuff the upstate is growing at a faster pace and will be one metro by the next census like it should be.

The population of Columbia's six-county CBSA (Core-Based Statistical Area), not to be confused with its CSA (Combined Statistical Area: Columbia-Newberry), grew at 10.36% from 2000 to 2007, compared with 8.24% for all the counties of the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson MSA and CBSA's of Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson respectively. In other words, in alphabetical order, the population gain for the six-county Columbia area of Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Richland and Saluda counties from 2000 to 2007 was 10.36%, while the population gain for all the counties in the Upstate that are included in the GSA MSA, or the Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson CBSA's respectively, was 8.24%, those counties being, in alphabetical order: Greenville, Laurens, Oconee(?), Pickens, Spartanburg and Union. If Oconee County does not belong in this list, then the growth was at a lower percentage rate than 8.24%, so I don't see how the Upstate is growing at a faster rate.

Illogical?

This discussion started because the census bureau released estimated national, state, and COUNTY population figures. When they release new urban area figures it would be logical to discuss them. I didn't realize how touchy this comparison is for Columbia area people.

I think all of the various comparisons are valid and useful. City limits, urban areas, county, metro, etc. I saw a blog entry recently for someone who stayed in Greenville while on a motorcycle trip. They liked downtown Greenville but couldn't understand why there was so much traffic and so many 6 lane freeways in a town of less than 60,000.

Tell somebody waiting in traffic on their commute that county population numbers don't matter. There are plenty of people living on family farms in completely rural areas who are considered "metropolitan" because an interstate crosses their county 20 miles away with a knot of suburbs for a distant city.

From other responses it seems York will continue to grow at a good pace but Horry may slow down.

Another thing you notice from the population figures is that many of the areas between the I-85 corridor, Columbia, and the coast continue to hollow out. Places like Laurens County,Union, Saluda, Sumter etc. It is a shame that they seem to have been left behind.

You missed my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population of Columbia's six-county CBSA (Core-Based Statistical Area), not to be confused with its CSA (Combined Statistical Area: Columbia-Newberry), grew at 10.36% from 2000 to 2007, compared with 8.24% for all the counties of the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson MSA and CBSA's of Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson respectively. In other words, in alphabetical order, the population gain for the six-county Columbia area of Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Richland and Saluda counties from 2000 to 2007 was 10.36%, while the population gain for all the counties in the Upstate that are included in the GSA MSA, or the Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson CBSA's respectively, was 8.24%, those counties being, in alphabetical order: Greenville, Laurens, Oconee(?), Pickens, Spartanburg and Union. If Oconee County does not belong in this list, then the growth was at a lower percentage rate than 8.24%, so I don't see how the Upstate is growing at a faster rate.

By the way, you left Anderson off of your alphabetical list of the Upstate.

The Upstate has a much larger population base. While your percentages show one thing, raw numbers show another. Three counties in the Columbia 6 county configuration lost population in 7 years. Only one in the Upstate lost population. No surprise which one: Union County. I'm not even sure why it's included in the mix. I guess the unemployed people there found jobs in Spartanburg County and increased the commuting percentage? It's not tied to the other counties whatsoever in terms of economy or growth (I-85). Nonetheless, the Upstate's only loss is confined to one county, while Columbia's is more widespread...

Anyway, here's the numbers:

County _____________Pop. Change from 2000-2007

COLUMBIA:

Calhoun County _______ -403

Fairfield ______________ -121

Kershaw _____________ 5,521

Lexington ___________ 27,260

Richland ____________ 36,953

Saluda _______________ -433

TOTAL: _____________ 68,777

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG-ANDERSON:

Anderson _____________14,241

Greenville_____________48,631

Laurens__________________29

Oconee________________4,538

Pickens________________5,246

Spartanburg___________21,752

Union_________________-2,111

TOTAL:_______________92,326

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population of Columbia's six-county CBSA (Core-Based Statistical Area), not to be confused with its CSA (Combined Statistical Area: Columbia-Newberry), grew at 10.36% from 2000 to 2007, compared with 8.24% for all the counties of the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson MSA and CBSA's of Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson respectively. In other words, in alphabetical order, the population gain for the six-county Columbia area of Calhoun, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lexington, Richland and Saluda counties from 2000 to 2007 was 10.36%, while the population gain for all the counties in the Upstate that are included in the GSA MSA, or the Greenville, Spartanburg and Anderson CBSA's respectively, was 8.24%, those counties being, in alphabetical order: Greenville, Laurens, Oconee(?), Pickens, Spartanburg and Union. If Oconee County does not belong in this list, then the growth was at a lower percentage rate than 8.24%, so I don't see how the Upstate is growing at a faster rate.

You missed my point.

I think I understand your point. You don't like comparing county growth rates. The urban area population numbers are probably the best, but the county numbers matter too because so much growth takes place in unincorporated areas in SC. And the county level is where a lot of important political decisions are made that impact growth.

Those CSA, CBSA, Metro numbers include many areas that really aren't urban. Look at Saluda, Calhoun, and Fairfield. They all lost population this decade. If Columbia is having an effect on them it must be a negative one. The same thing could be said for Union or Laurens in the Greenville/Spartanburg area. Union has declined by over 7% and Laurens is stagnant - no growth. The northern part of Fairfield is probably closer to Rock Hill, or Ft. Mill than Columbia. Maybe it should be part of the Charlotte zone.

Oconee County grew by 6.9% so it is dragging down the overall upstate growth rate not pulling it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, you left Anderson off of your alphabetical list of the Upstate.

The Upstate has a much larger population base. While your percentages show one thing, raw numbers show another. Three counties in the Columbia 6 county configuration lost population in 7 years. Only one in the Upstate lost population. No surprise which one: Union County. I'm not even sure why it's included in the mix. I guess the unemployed people there found jobs in Spartanburg County and increased the commuting percentage? It's not tied to the other counties whatsoever in terms of economy or growth (I-85). Nonetheless, the Upstate's only loss is confined to one county, while Columbia's is more widespread...

Anyway, here's the numbers:

County _____________Pop. Change from 2000-2007

COLUMBIA:

Calhoun County _______ -403

Fairfield ______________ -121

Kershaw _____________ 5,521

Lexington ___________ 27,260

Richland ____________ 36,953

Saluda _______________ -433

TOTAL: _____________ 68,777

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG-ANDERSON:

Anderson _____________14,241

Greenville_____________48,631

Laurens__________________29

Oconee________________4,538

Pickens________________5,246

Spartanburg___________21,752

Union_________________-2,111

TOTAL:_______________92,326

I'm glad you posted this. We went over this before I think. The real numbers don't lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all need to chill out. The fact is that both statistics are relevant. Percentages are a good way to compare cities because it relates a citys growth to itself. Raw numbers are good to see where people are actually moving. You have to look at both to get the real picture. I have argued against the percentage statistic in the past, but I have since some to realize that it is a useful piece of information.

The fact that Columbia is growing at a faster rate that GSA is important to know because it means Columbia is growing at a healthy clip and if that rate maintains itself it will catch up to GSA over time. GSA has more raw growth, but its also spread out over 8 counties... well 6 actually (you all keep forgetting Cherokee is in the GSA CSA). Columbia's growth is concentrated primarily in two counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Columbia's growth is concentrated primarily in two counties.

Exactly, and nobody is disputing that. The difference to many of us is that Columbia gets credit for its growth due to its MSA including SIX counties, whereas many times Greenville doesn't (its current MSA only includes a measly THREE counties). It's silly that people moving to Spartanburg and Anderson counties are not included in the Greenville metro population. To us, it's not a coincidence that the fastest-growing parts of those two counties are the areas that border Greenville County. That's not to take away anything from Spartanburg or Anderson MSAs, but without Greenville they would surely not be in the position they are (that is especially true of Anderson).

Nobody in their right mind would say that Saluda County, a rural county in the Columbia MSA located west of Lexington County, is more connected to Columbia than Anderson and Spartanburg counties are to Greenville. At least I hope not. :o

Does anyone here honestly believe that Columbia's MSA should be twice as large (in terms of counties) than the Greenville MSA? Does it truly have that much pull and influence compared to little 'ol Greenville, sandwiched between two important metros in Spartanburg and Anderson? Or might Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson truly be the largest metro area in the state? -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, you left Anderson off of your alphabetical list of the Upstate.

The Upstate has a much larger population base. While your percentages show one thing, raw numbers show another. Three counties in the Columbia 6 county configuration lost population in 7 years. Only one in the Upstate lost population. No surprise which one: Union County. I'm not even sure why it's included in the mix. I guess the unemployed people there found jobs in Spartanburg County and increased the commuting percentage? It's not tied to the other counties whatsoever in terms of economy or growth (I-85). Nonetheless, the Upstate's only loss is confined to one county, while Columbia's is more widespread...

Anyway, here's the numbers:

County _____________Pop. Change from 2000-2007

COLUMBIA:

Calhoun County _______ -403

Fairfield ______________ -121

Kershaw _____________ 5,521

Lexington ___________ 27,260

Richland ____________ 36,953

Saluda _______________ -433

TOTAL: _____________ 68,777

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG-ANDERSON:

Anderson _____________14,241

Greenville_____________48,631

Laurens__________________29

Oconee________________4,538

Pickens________________5,246

Spartanburg___________21,752

Union_________________-2,111

TOTAL:_______________92,326

I left Anderson out in my alphabetical listing (sorry), but not in my calculations. Without Oconee County's growth, the negative growth counties drag it down further. But I do want to chill out as Spartan says. Getting on here is making me nervous, what with all with the bickering. Our metros are all doing okay. But Laurens did lose between 2006 and 2007.

Edited by CorgiMatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, and nobody is disputing that. The difference to many of us is that Columbia gets credit for its growth due to its MSA including SIX counties, whereas many times Greenville doesn't (its current MSA only includes a measly THREE counties). It's silly that people moving to Spartanburg and Anderson counties are not included in the Greenville metro population. To us, it's not a coincidence that the fastest-growing parts of those two counties are the areas that border Greenville County. That's not to take away anything from Spartanburg or Anderson MSAs, but without Greenville they would surely not be in the position they are (that is especially true of Anderson).

Nobody in their right mind would say that Saluda County, a rural county in the Columbia MSA located west of Lexington County, is more connected to Columbia than Anderson and Spartanburg counties are to Greenville. At least I hope not. :o

Does anyone here honestly believe that Columbia's MSA should be twice as large (in terms of counties) than the Greenville MSA? Does it truly have that much pull and influence compared to little 'ol Greenville, sandwiched between two important metros in Spartanburg and Anderson? Or might Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson truly be the largest metro area in the state? -_-

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson are three separate cities and according to the census bureau they are not part of the same msa. If you have a quarrel you should take it up with the census bureau. If you look at Greenville's msa, the only county growing much is Greenville. Laurens and Pickens are pretty stagnant.

Edited by waccamatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson is three separate cities and according to the census bureau they are not part of the same msa. If you have a quarrel you should take it up with the census bureau. If you look at Greenville's msa, the only county growing much is Greenville. Laurens and Pickens are pretty stagnant.

Which is precisely why it's unfair to take away Anderson and Spartanburg counties. Like Greenville said, the fastest growing portions of those counties border Greenville County, and that's no coincidence. It paints a skewed picture of growth influenced by Greenville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems that some try so hard to downplay the astronomical growth the upstate has and still is experiencing.

Define the term astronomical. Other than York, Horry and maybe Dorchester I don't think any county in the state is experiencing "astronomical" growth. Let's face it; South Carolina isn't growing nearly as fast as North Carolina or Georgia and I place a lot of the blame on our good ol' boy legislature and some provincial attitudes among many South Carolinians. Wouldn't it be nice if we could experience the same sort of growth Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida have seen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If they were included, what difference will it make in the scheme of things? BTW, local counties can petition, and they often do, to not be included in a particular MSA.

For one, it would give a more accurate representation of things going on in this part of the state. Secondly, it was brought up because someone was upset that the depiction of Columbia was unfair. In the big scheme of things, no matter what stats you compare, nothing is going to be fully compatible across the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because not all metro areas are fully compatible & comparable in SC or the entire US. You can't compare Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson with Columbia or Charleston just as you can't compare Greensboro / Winston-Salem / Durham with Charlotte / Gastonia / Concord (or Rock Hill). Just because there are a collection of large towns & cities within close proximity that share economic interests doesn't make it a single metro area that would be the same as a singular-city metro.

But that isn't to say the growth in the Upstate isn't relevant or the greater metro region of Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson isn't a significant demographic pattern. But until the Office of Management & Budget (not the Census Bureau) redefines what a metro area is, rather than measuring commuting patterns - then you have to accept it. Otherwise, & I'll yell this until I'm blue in the face, some of you are arguing that the Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson greater metro area be treated as just Greenville's metro area, that is completely wrong & for several more decades it will continue to be independent metro areas. Greenville is obviously the center of the economy & culture of the Upstate, but it isn't the only major city. Whereas Columbia is the only major city in it's MSA & Charleston is the only major city in it's MSA (North Charleston is a business suburb of Charleston).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not arguing that Anderson and Spartanburg don't exist, but South Carolina's counties are too large to say that Anderson and Spartanburg counties are independent of Greenville's growth, and therefore saying that the only numbers for Greenville's growth is defined by Greenville Counties numbers. Just like you can't ONLY define Columbia's growth by Richland County.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm not arguing that Anderson and Spartanburg don't exist, but South Carolina's counties are too large to say that Anderson and Spartanburg counties are independent of Greenville's growth, and therefore saying that the only numbers for Greenville's growth is defined by Greenville Counties numbers.

This is why I think the setup that exists now with each primary city having its own MSA, while being included in a larger CSA, best reflects that reality. The MSA configurations clearly demonstrate that Spartanburg and Anderson each have enough economic gravity to pull surroundings areas into their economic orbits, while the larger CSA designation show that they also have a reliance on Greenville.

And as far as "astronomical" growth rates in SC, that's almost laughable. With the possible exception of Myrtle Beach, whose slowdown is imminent (and has probably already begun) due to the downturn in the housing market, the growth rates of the MSAs are nothing more than average. When one of them starts to pull away from its peers as Raleigh did in the 90's, then we might have something to talk about.

Also, a word about county growth patterns. Greenville, Richland, and Charleston counties all have growth from their primary cities that spill over into neighboring counties, but I believe that pattern is much more pronounced in the Columbia area than the Greenville or Charleston areas. It's almost a 60/40 type deal in the Midlands, with Richland capturing 60% of Columbia's growth, and Lexington getting the other 40%. Greenville does have the Greer and Powdersville situations, but it doesn't appear to be as prominent as it is in the Midlands, which is a good thing. First, the overwhelming majority of the growth caused by Greenville remains in the county, and that helps to give Greenville County the status of being the state's largest county, which in some ways makes up for the relatively small municipal population. Secondly, you reduce the potential amount of jurisdictional bickering that might occur as a result (just look to Richland-Lexington interactions as an example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems that some try so hard to downplay the astronomical growth the upstate has and still is experiencing.

Astronomical, huh? Maybe you should compare GSA's #'s to lets say an Atlanta or Los Angeles suburb and then re-evaluate your choice of words. I think the fact that the cores of SC's metros are gaining (considering the odds) should be applauded. No need for a childish p*ssing contest, we're all adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astronomical, huh? Maybe you should compare GSA's #'s to lets say an Atlanta or Los Angeles suburb and then re-evaluate your choice of words. I think the fact that the cores of SC's metros are gaining (considering the odds) should be applauded. No need for a childish p*ssing contest, we're all adults.

Comparing a mid size city to a large city is somewhat childish itself isn't it? We aren't talking about large cities and no one here is stupid enough to try to. Bottom line is, I'm sick of people trying to take from the upstate and break it down into smaller areas to make their ego feel better. The bottom line is upstate is 1.2 million and does work together despite what lines you want to create to make it smaller to your ego. It has the states most headquarters and Greenville is an engineering hub. It also will probably be the first in the state to create mass transit and other alternative ways to travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing a mid size city to a large city is somewhat childish itself isn't it? We aren't talking about large cities and no one here is stupid enough to try to. Bottom line is, I'm sick of people trying to take from the upstate and break it down into smaller areas to make their ego feel better. The bottom line is upstate is 1.2 million and does work together despite what lines you want to create to make it smaller to your ego. It has the states most headquarters and Greenville is an engineering hub. It also will probably be the first in the state to create mass transit and other alternative ways to travel.

WOW...spin much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brycola, motonenterprises, & HybridOne. if you attack each other one more time, you are going to be done with this board for a while. This is why I don't like population topics on UrbanPlanet as they turn into nothing but boosterish pissing contests that serve no purpose.

:angry:

I am tempted to just close this topic since you guys have generally demonstrated there is no point in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define the term astronomical. Other than York, Horry and maybe Dorchester I don't think any county in the state is experiencing "astronomical" growth. Let's face it; South Carolina isn't growing nearly as fast as North Carolina or Georgia and I place a lot of the blame on our good ol' boy legislature and some provincial attitudes among many South Carolinians. Wouldn't it be nice if we could experience the same sort of growth Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida have seen?

Maybe yes, maybe no. You could be getting two or three times the sprawl you're already having to deal with: I'll invite you up to spend valuable time sitting in heavy traffic on I-40 near RTP. There's something to be said, in theory at least, for modest but steady growth. There's a golden opportunity to grow smart, as the numbers start to curve upward. As for Florida levels of growth: be careful what you wish for. Once it's paved over, you ain't getting it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.